Is the flooding scare really about flooding or money?

by

Photo: Mike Fodness (from KELO-TV website, flood 2010)

I watched this debate unfold during the SF city council informational meeting, and I got the feeling that the feds were more concerned about money then they were about flooding, and after reading this article, I’m starting to agree;

But a process that had been moving rapidly suddenly stalled when the money request reached the Corps headquarters in Washington.

Oh, that’s right, up until this point the city of Sioux Falls has subsidized the Feds by paying for the feds levees and flood controls while contributing to the Corp’s infrastructure.

“If we give them federal money now (something we all contribute to in our federal income taxes) we would be going against what we have done in the past. Better think this one through, we wouldn’t want to look like hypocrites . . .”

At issue is a rule that forbids the Corps from mixing emergency funds with project funds, Cotter said. The city of Sioux Falls issued bonds in 2009 to complete the levee upgrades after years of budget delays from Congress. Officials in Washington question whether the temporary emergency upgrades would qualify as mixing of funds with the city’s plan to finish permanent upgrades.

In other words, the Corps had the money to give us to do the permanent fixes and if they give us money now, it will prove it. I have said all along paying for those upgrades, actually borrowing money for those upgrades was f’ing stupid. I actually pleaded with a few councilors not to approve it. Councilor Staggers told me their hands were tied. Boloney!

It’s simple. If the Feds (FEMA) is telling you the levees need to be raised and those levees are owned by the Feds (Corps) it only makes sence they pay for it. The city should not be involved besides upgrading the bike trails, landscaping, etc.

We were really suckered and it looks like we will get suckered again.

Posted in: Floodplain, Floods, SF City Council, Sioux Falls

Nanner, Nanner! I told you so.

by

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbJQT2eDseA[/youtube]

Big freaking surprise here. I told anyone I could track down in city government about NOT bonding for the levee system in hopes the FEDS would  reimburse them.

[ Entire thread ] [ abreviated ]

My argument was simple. Why would the Feds reimburse you for something you already paid for?

The city issued bonds in late 2009, and work on the project has clipped along. The federal government, however, has yet to reimburse any money. And with a new, two-year ban on congressional earmarks, nobody at City Hall better be holding their breath for a check to show up in the mail.

I have often felt there is a disconnect between local and national politics, this incident proves it.

Let me put it in simple terms; If your dying grandma gives you a trailer house to live in, would yah pay her for it?

Posted in: Sioux Falls

UPDATE: Daily vs. Sioux Falls

by

The city has until July 1 when a 30 day right to appeal into State Supreme court kicks in.  They’re now represented by private council.  It’s a firm specializing in insurance litigation.  They’ve lost 2 lawsuits and are finding it hard to get/keep liability insurance.

Daily’s attorney has removed himself and the best appeals lawyer in the state has taken the case ‘Pro Bono’.  Mr. Dorothy still works as evidence assembler.  He rounded up new council from his contacts when he worked at the States Attorney’s Office in Pierre.  USD Law School is involved.  They’re doing ‘Pro Bono’ research.

It kinda sounds like if the city decides to appeal Caldwell’s decision they could be up shit creek without a paddle. Good thing they are raising the levees.

Posted in: 5th Amendment, Sioux Falls, US Constitution

A strange and misleading endorsement of Sweet Vernon ‘The Velvet Hammer’ Brown

by

While I still think it is gigantic pile of dog doo-doo that we are subsidizing the Feds by paying to raise the levees, I think this letter writer is incredibly misguided;

Brown knew the costs to raise the levees would need to be paid through the selling of revenue bonds.

First off, no that is not the best way to pay for the levees. The Feds regulate the levees (FEMA) and the levees (should) be maintained by the Feds (The Corp of Engineers) they are ultimately responsible for the cost, not the taxpayers of Sioux Falls. As councilor Litz said to me in an email, the Feds kind of had them between a rock and a hard place on this one.

The only “no” vote against the bonds was cast by City Council Member Pat Costello.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but I think all eight councilors voted for the bond? They really had no choice. I know that the Gargoyle Leader’s staff probably doesn’t have the time to FACT check every letter, but this one is questionable. Of course this is the same newspaper that just lets it’s editors print whatever campaign financial numbers they want to pull out of the sky.

Posted in: Sioux Falls Mayor Race, Vernon Brown

Staggers lands a zinger

by

Seems things are heating up in the mayoral race. Bout time.

“While every person, business and organization in the community knew we were in the middle of a serious economic slowdown, City Hall chose to ignore reality,” said Bill Peterson, who voiced his criticism Tuesday.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Bill one of the advocates of the tax increase for the arterial streets and the 3rd penny for the EC? At both council meetings I warned of a economic downturn. Where were your concerns then, Bill?

“This is just another example on how city government is becoming more out of touch on what the citizens of Sioux Falls want,” Huether said.

Yah think? I’m glad to see Mike is out there talking to citizens. I think he is coming to the realization that people are hurting, I can tell you that 2009 wasn’t the greatest year for Detroit Lewis, but I don’t have four kids to feed. I can’t imagine what some of these people are going thru.

Mayor Dave Munson, who is term-limited, said Peterson’s criticism almost sounds like he is running against him. “I hope that he’s not trying to create a crisis for one that doesn’t exist,” Munson said.

Well, Dave, if you think a $330 million dollar city debt and a sagging economy are not a crisis, I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara.

“They should have seen this coming and they didn’t, and that’s a failure of leadership, period,” Peterson said.

Well, well, well, seems Mr. Peterson doesn’t even know the ‘failure of leadership’ he created himself. He wrote the unconstitutional home rule charter for the city which pretty much ties the hands of councilors to make budget decisions. Kinda hard to lead when you are handcuffed Bill. You pretty much eliminated the checks and balances the city council would have had over the mayor.

Five months ago, some council members and the mayor sparred over the 2010 budget, which is 4 percent larger than last year’s. Staggers introduced 30 amendments to cut spending. Only one passed. It pushed a capital project to a later date.

Yes, and only a couple of those amendments were seconded for debate. That is the rubberstamp council at their best. What I can’t understand is even if you do not agree with Kermit’s amendments, why wouldn’t you at least be willing to debate them?

The current plan for potential holdbacks is to put the city, and the next mayor in a good position, Munson said.

“I really do want to leave it solid,” he said. “We have to make assumptions ahead of time.”

Yes. A solid debt. $100 million for ‘Quality of Life’ projects like monkey crappers, wood thingies and football fields for kids living in Montrose. $70 million for a water pipeline that we won’t have for another 2-6 years (maybe) and over $10 million for levees that the Feds should be paying for out of our income taxes.

Staggers said his opponents who supported the local sales tax funding option for the events center are contradicting themselves.

“It’s interesting that they are concerned about the budget, but at the same time they are out there advocating tax increases,” he said.

ZING!

Posted in: Sioux Falls Mayor Race